On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, at 15:29, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Jasper Deng <jas...@jasperswebsite.com> > wrote: > > This question is analogous to the question of open proxies. The answer has > > universally been that the costs (abuse) are just too high. > > No, it's not analogous to just permitting open proxies as no one in > this thread is suggesting just flipping it on. > > I proposed issuing blind exemption tokens up-thread as an example > mechanism which would preserve the rate limiting of abusive use > without removing privacy. > > > However, we might consider doing what the freenode IRC network does. > > Freenode requires SASL authentication to connect on Tor, which basically > > means only users with registered accounts can use it. The main reason for > > hardblocking and not allowing registered accounts on-wiki via Tor is that > > CheckUsers need useful IP data. But it might be feasible if we just force > > all account creation to happen on "real" IPs, although that still hides > > some data from CheckUsers. > > What freenode does is not functionally useful for Tor users. In my > first hand experience it manages to enable abusive activity while > simultaneously eliminating Tor's usefulness at protecting its users. > > The only value it provides is providing a pretext of "tor support" > without actually doing something good... and we already have the "you > can get an IPblock-exempt (except you can't really, and if you do > it'll get randomly revoked." if all we want is a pretext. :)
The "register at real IP, then only use TOR through an account" flow implies trust in some entity (such as freenode irc network opers or Wikipedia CheckUsers). I currently believe that requiring such trust doesn't "eliminate TOR's usefullness at protecting its users". Gryllida _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
